Suchergebnisse

In this study, an assessment model is developed to guide courts in deciding equal treatment cases. Such a model appears to be indispensable, since relevant equality provisions often do not offer much guidance as to the assessment of unequal treatment. This lack of guidance may lead to diverging approaches and outcomes, which is undesirable from the perspective of equality and legal certainty. The use of the assessment model developed in this study will improve judicial reasoning and enhance the legitimacy of equal treatment case law. The general assessment model developed in this study is based on theoretical research after the standards that should be used in assessing cases against the principle of equal treatment, supplemented by an elaborate comparative analysis of the equal treatment case law in various legal systems. The result of this approach is the design of an assessment model that is both theoretically sound and workable in practice. The Dutch edition of this book has been awarded with the Erasmus Study Prize 2003, the Max van der Stoel Human Rights Prize and the Constitutional Law Prize

In this study, a general model is developed for judicial assessment of equal treatment cases. The model is based on theoretical research after the standards that should be used in assessing cases against the general principle of equal treatment, supplemented by an elaborate comparative analysis of the equal treatment case law in various legal systems. The result of this approach is an assessment model that is both theoretically sound and workable in practice. The use of the model by the courts will improve judicial reasoning and enhance the legitimacy of equal treatment case law.

Preferential policies, though they are not required by justice, are not seriously unjust; the system from which they depart is already unjust. Deliberate barriers against admitting blacks or women, however, had to be abolished--without explicit barriers discrimination could be conscious or unconscious (motivationally), thus giving support to a self-conscious effort to act impartially. The realization that a social system may continue to deny different races or sexes equal opportunity & equal access to desirable positions even after such barriers have been lifted became evident, since society automatically provides different rewards for different groups. The question is raised: How great is a social contribution to injustice, to what extent is it due to social causes not involving injustice, or to causes which are not social but biological? Can unjustly caused disadvantages be overcome by special programs of preparatory or remedial training? What grounds are to be used in assigning individuals to desirable positions? People less qualified, for whatever reason could be compensated for this disadvantage by having suitably different standards for these different groups. Obviously, this would not be a stable position. Compensatory procedures would then have to be applied in individual bases. The concept of differences advocated by liberals is too weak to combat inequalities dispensed by nature & ordinary workings of the social system. In most societies rewards are a function of demand, & many of the human characteristics most in demand result from gifts & talents. If racial & sexual injustice were reduced we would still be left with the injustice of the smart & the dumb; "at present we do not have a method of divorcing professional status from social esteem & economic reward. In the absence of this, what remains is the familiar task of balancing liberty against equality." S. Cummings.

AbstractWe analyse a labour‐matching model with wage posting, where – reflecting institutional constraints – firms cannot differentiate their wage offers within certain subsets of workers. Inter alia, we find that the presence of impersonal wage offers leads to wage compression, which propagates to the wages for high productivity workers who receive personalized offers.

The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. ; The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.

AbstractAlthough fair trial guarantees have always been recognised as constituting an integral aspect of international arbitral proceedings, this has largely been viewed through the lens of civil procedure rather than as a matter of public law and human rights. This state of affairs has further been compounded by the confidential nature of arbitration and the relative scarcity of set aside (annulment) proceedings before the courts of the seat of arbitration on the grounds of unequal treatment, and before human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, it has always been difficult to reconcile contractual freedom and the advantages offered by arbitration with equal treatment and fair trial claims. This article demonstrates the existence of a set of general principles concerning the meaning and content of equal treatment, which are consistent with its commercial (and civil procedure) and human rights dimensions. The basis of this conclusion is Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as consistently interpreted and adapted by local laws and judgments, arbitral statutes and determinations by the European Court of Human Rights.

Immigrants and ethnic minority members typically hold lower levels of social trust than majority members due to fewer socio-economic resources and a higher risk of discrimination. While institutional factors are a strong predictor for different levels of social trust across countries, we know little about whether and how institutional and political contexts influence group-related differences in trust within societies. This study examines how institutional fairness and anti-discrimination policies influence social trust gaps between natives and immigrants as well as ethnic minority members. Offering a nuanced perspective, I argue that regulations promoting equal treatment may also have unintended consequences on ethnic minority trust by increasing the sensitivity towards remaining inequalities and discriminatory practices. Multilevel models test the theoretical arguments using repeated cross-sectional survey data from European countries merged with time series information on political context. The results show that an increase in institutional fairness is related to widening social trust gaps. Findings from additional tests on potential mechanisms suggest that institutional fairness promotes norms of equal treatment which in turn magnify the extent to which ethnic discrimination impedes social trust.